Philosophical Vegan Forum

This may be the wrong topic for my post but it has the right title, maybe moderators disagree and move it, I can't decide.

It seems that word "sentience" does not exist in my native language, at least according to google.
https://translate.google.com/#en/hr/sentience
It is equated with words "feeling, sense, feel, sentiment, sensation, sentience" that I think are not accurate in animal welfare/rights context.

After reading both article on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience and an entry in dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentience I'm still a bit confused on it's meaning. I get some sort of notion but would be unable to explain it to someone else.
Can anyone offer an explanation or description in such form that it would satisfy a child or a dumber person?

Oh, I just read this post
http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... 158d#p9221
that largely answers to my previous post.

Let's assume we lived in a universe in which plants were just as sentient as animals, just autotrophs. Wouldn't the sentient argument not matter? Since eating animals always involves more plant suffering too, it would still be the least suffering to be vegan.

By contrast if we were unable to digest plants or unable to meet all our nutritional needs from plants and didnt hv supplement alternatives then we would have to depend on animals for food. In either case its the least amount of suffering, irrespective of sentience that is the moral imperative.

If we could synthesize all our food in the absence of plants then that would be the moral imperative and individuals might contend that no living being should be killed for food for instance.

IMO at each stage it depends on the least amount of suffering for eg necessary for survival.

I dont see the operant conditioning requirement either, as Bentham had suggested its not the ability to reason but the ability to suffer (experience pain) that's important.
An individual may be incapable neurobiologically of learning but might be perfectly capable of experiencing pain. Doesnt mean since learning and memory is absent that its ok to inflict pain on said individual, just nociception is adequate.

PowerPlant wrote: Can anyone offer an explanation or description in such form that it would satisfy a child or a dumber person?

Sentience is the ability to feel sensation, which means more than just nerves firing, but actually processing that sensation into something meaningful. A brain-dead person or a plant is not sentient.
Processing that information into something meaningful requires rudimentary intelligence, because in order for sense to mean something, it must be experienced relative to genuine "wants" of the organism. A plant doesn't actually want anything, nor do very simple microbes. You only really want something, not because it is physiologically beneficial to your continued life and growth, but because you understand it through intelligence and process incoming information in terms of realizing those wants. That is expressed through associative learning. You can't have one without the other.

There is only one uncertain case I can think of, and that is an animal (human or otherwise) that has lost the ability to store and process new memories, but retains all old experience and framework. That organism lives entirely in the now, and can no longer learn, but seems in some ways sentient due to that established framework.
I would guess that a complete loss of the ability to store and process new memories would mean non-sentience (and that at least rudimentary working memory would be required for basic cognitive function).

garrethdsouza wrote:Let's assume we lived in a universe in which plants were just as sentient as animals, just autotrophs. Wouldn't the sentient argument not matter? Since eating animals always involves more plant suffering too, it would still be the least suffering to be vegan.

Well, there's also fruitarianism.

And yes, that's superficially true; eating plants would still cause the least plant deaths, ignoring fruitarianism.
But as I said, a universe in which plants were sentient would be completely different from the one we live in, because it would be operating on very different laws. It might, for example, have gods. The source of the plant sentience might be something like spirits of faeries that are parts of the plants. Evolution would be false. For all we would know, the plants might like to be eaten, in order to become part of a higher life form and gain the ability to move. Death, at least, almost certainly would not mean the end of experience.

garrethdsouza wrote: I dont see the operant conditioning requirement either, as Bentham had suggested its not the ability to reason but the ability to suffer (experience pain) that's important.
An individual may be incapable neurobiologically of learning but might be perfectly capable of experiencing pain. Doesnt mean since learning and memory is absent that its ok to inflict pain on said individual, just nociception is adequate.

See above; rudimentary intelligence is required for sentience. Nociception is not in itself meaningful. "Pain" signals that are not comprehended or understood within an intelligent framework are meaningless, and at best stimulate simple cause and effect reflexes which are as non-sentient as the reaction of vinegar and sodium bicarbonate 'fizzing'.

Pain proper is also not necessary; an animal that lacks nociception can still be sentient through other sense experiences, and can still have a will that can be violated. The presence of a will (to be realized or violated) is what is important.

I have no doubt in my mind that animals have sentience. And, i will continue to eat meat nonetheless. We, humans, are absolute rulers of this planet. If animals want to be something more than dinner, then they're going to have to evolve and learn how to use tools and walk upright like we did, and make themselves ruler. And i doubt that will be happening ANY time soon...hahaha

Sadistic I Am wrote:I have no doubt in my mind that animals have sentience. And, i will continue to eat meat nonetheless. We, humans, are absolute rulers of this planet. If animals want to be something more than dinner, then they're going to have to evolve and learn how to use tools and walk upright like we did, and make themselves ruler. And i doubt that will be happening ANY time soon...hahaha

So, you've made this post for... what reason again?
To piss people off? Or?

thebestofenergy wrote:

Sadistic I Am wrote:I have no doubt in my mind that animals have sentience. And, i will continue to eat meat nonetheless. We, humans, are absolute rulers of this planet. If animals want to be something more than dinner, then they're going to have to evolve and learn how to use tools and walk upright like we did, and make themselves ruler. And i doubt that will be happening ANY time soon...hahaha

So, you've made this post for... what reason again?
To piss people off? Or?

Why would one get pissed off by an idiotic troll? They are just for amusement, reminding that there are people who really need some attn in their lives and they cannot get it otherwise

Sorry for the delay in response

brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't understand what you mean. Can you give me an example?

Deontology and consequentialism can have a lot of overlap in effect in certain hypothetical cases, where they differ most greatly is in justification, and practical application (deontology doesn't work practically).

Effectively I agree with you, that the absolute dogmatism, without any rationalism is crap.
But the issue with this particular dogma, is that it has many valid points, that appeal to me, and I think we should be following, almost blindly, not because of the dogma, but because of the fact, that I think that they are right. I will not descent too much into this, as I dislike dogmas myself.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't know what you mean.

If people have a certain rule they live by, and the consequences of that rule are good, and they consider that rule to be good because the consequences of living by it are good, then that's consequentialism and not deontology.
Consequentialism works very well with "rules of thumb".
Where it differs, is that those rules are not absolute, such as in extraordinary or unusual circumstances where the rules break down and obviously fail to provide good consequences.

For example, it's generally good not to lie. Not lying is a good rule of thumb, and 99.9% of the time that's going to give you good result.
But when the Nazis knock on your door and ask you where the Jews are hiding, you run into a dilemma. Should you lie and protect the lives of innocents? Or should you tell the truth?

A deontologist would demand that you tell the truth, because lying is always bad no matter what, no questions asked.
A consequentialist would call you an idiot for even asking the question, and say of course you should lie to save a life.

That is to show that probably 99.9% of the time, there can be a lot of overlap. But where deontology breaks down is where two moral prerogatives come into conflict... which actually happens more than you might think, and usually in the more important moral decisions you make in your life.

Yeah, in this case I would call myself and idiot as well.
I am not sure if I have understood deontology in its fullest. The problem is that I don't know, if vegan deontology, is a continuation of a global deontology, or it is just that, vegan deontology, that only applies, in that sector. If yes, then, if vegan deontology is prevalent, for instance, if everybody thinks that it is really a bad thing, not to be vegan, (in an ideal world, where everybody could be vegan without further consequences), then I think this deontology, or social rules to live by, would help eliminate the suffering, drastically. I dont see anything wrong with that. We need to remember, that a big part of people need some strict rules defined by others, so that they can say what is right and wrong, unfortunately.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Those are all questions we would ask in the context of consequential ethics (the more information, the better). Often we have to make decisions based on inadequate information, which of course is not ideal, and raises the chance of horribly screwing up, which is why consequential ethics is inherently reliant on an ethical obligation to learn and explore.

As to your issue/question, I'm not sure I understand. Can you rephrase it?

The social contract is implicit, it doesn't need to be signed. Generally speaking, we inherit it. But in terms of a democratic society, we do contribute to it (or we can, if the system is working).

I am not convinced that the system is working, or that the democratic aspect of our society, is really democratic. I believe that democracy should be based on the will of people, who make their own educated decisions, of how their world should be governed. Lack of education is ample, therefore democracy is crippled. Closed minds and open pockets has lead to the problem with the meat and milk industry in the first place. People will firstly react based on their egocentric instinct, at least from what I have seen, so this social contract, is far from being valid. It should be, but it is not.

As far as my question goes, I think you give a good explanation. We make decisions based on inadequate information. Deontology would have all the boys trying to make it, unless the fat boy would be willing to sacrifice itself, I think. Also until we have all the information, deontology would set firm rules of what is the right thing to do. Of course, if we dont question those rules, we are doomed. I am not a proponent of deontolgy, without questioning, but only in a society where people are interested to search for information and find out for themselves what is good/right and what not. From what I see we are far from achieving such social identity.

metalized wrote: But the issue with this particular dogma, is that it has many valid points,

No, it does not. It doesn't have any valid points whatsoever.

You need to learn about what validity means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

Santaclause has a white beard
Santaclause's sled is pulled by rein deer
White beards look like clouds
Rein sounds like rain
Therefore, clouds are the source of rain.

Is that a valid point?
No, no it is not.

The conclusion may accidentally be correct, but it is in no way valid logic.

metalized wrote: that appeal to me, and I think we should be following, almost blindly, not because of the dogma, but because of the fact, that I think that they are right.

First, when you follow something 'almost blindly', that IS because of dogma. You can't split hairs on this.
If you just think they're right, but you can not substantiate it, that's dogma.

You can come to the same conclusion, that rain comes from clouds, without appealing to invalid reasoning and incoherent arguments to support it.

Likewise, you can come to the same conclusions about animal agriculture through consequentialism, without appealing to the irrational dogma that is deontology. You're much better off in the end from having used reason and logic, instead of just asserting the conclusion.

metalized wrote: I am not sure if I have understood deontology in its fullest. The problem is that I don't know, if vegan deontology, is a continuation of a global deontology, or it is just that, vegan deontology, that only applies, in that sector.

It's part of "global deontology". Deontology is the overall [irrational] premise that's being followed, which rejects consequentialism.

Anyway, you can't mix the two. Look into the principle of explosion. Ex falso quodlibet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

If you assert any contradiction in any system (moral or otherwise), the whole thing falls apart. This is why theism is false. You can't just accommodate contradictions wherever you feel like it.

metalized wrote:I dont see anything wrong with that. We need to remember, that a big part of people need some strict rules defined by others, so that they can say what is right and wrong, unfortunately.

It's simply factually wrong for the same reason Christian fundamentalism is wrong -- they're both founded on nonsensical self-contradictory dogma.

In a consequential sense, factually wrong is also usually morally wrong -- so there's that to consider.
But also, it's practically wrong because it's easier to reject deontological veganism as dogma (because it IS dogma), and modern people are much more sensitive to dogma than people used to be.
AND deontology, even the best one you could possibly formulate, results in immoral outcomes in 'unusual' situations, which aren't even all that unusual. It can potentially be wrong 50% of the time when there's a conflict of interest. That's NOT a good hit to miss ratio. You might as well flip a coin instead and save the trouble of pretending to follow a moral system at that point, for all of the difference it makes.

metalized wrote:Lack of education is ample, therefore democracy is crippled.

Which is why consequentialism tells us that education is important.

metalized wrote:Deontology would have all the boys trying to make it, unless the fat boy would be willing to sacrifice itself, I think.

Deontology can make any arbitrary ruling, as long as that ruling is absolute, dogmatic, and never considers the consequences.

metalized wrote:Also until we have all the information, deontology would set firm rules of what is the right thing to do.

It doesn't, it's arbitrary and dogmatic. The rules are at best guesses in that case, it's not the right thing to do, it's just as likely to be the wrong thing to do.

metalized wrote:Sorry for the delay in response

brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't understand what you mean. Can you give me an example?

Deontology and consequentialism can have a lot of overlap in effect in certain hypothetical cases, where they differ most greatly is in justification, and practical application (deontology doesn't work practically).

Effectively I agree with you, that the absolute dogmatism, without any rationalism is crap.
But the issue with this particular dogma, is that it has many valid points, that appeal to me, and I think we should be following, almost blindly, not because of the dogma, but because of the fact, that I think that they are right. I will not descent too much into this, as I dislike dogmas myself.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't know what you mean.

If people have a certain rule they live by, and the consequences of that rule are good, and they consider that rule to be good because the consequences of living by it are good, then that's consequentialism and not deontology.
Consequentialism works very well with "rules of thumb".
Where it differs, is that those rules are not absolute, such as in extraordinary or unusual circumstances where the rules break down and obviously fail to provide good consequences.

For example, it's generally good not to lie. Not lying is a good rule of thumb, and 99.9% of the time that's going to give you good result.
But when the Nazis knock on your door and ask you where the Jews are hiding, you run into a dilemma. Should you lie and protect the lives of innocents? Or should you tell the truth?

A deontologist would demand that you tell the truth, because lying is always bad no matter what, no questions asked.
A consequentialist would call you an idiot for even asking the question, and say of course you should lie to save a life.

That is to show that probably 99.9% of the time, there can be a lot of overlap. But where deontology breaks down is where two moral prerogatives come into conflict... which actually happens more than you might think, and usually in the more important moral decisions you make in your life.

Yeah, in this case I would call myself and idiot as well.
I am not sure if I have understood deontology in its fullest. The problem is that I don't know, if vegan deontology, is a continuation of a global deontology, or it is just that, vegan deontology, that only applies, in that sector. If yes, then, if vegan deontology is prevalent, for instance, if everybody thinks that it is really a bad thing, not to be vegan, (in an ideal world, where everybody could be vegan without further consequences), then I think this deontology, or social rules to live by, would help eliminate the suffering, drastically. I dont see anything wrong with that. We need to remember, that a big part of people need some strict rules defined by others, so that they can say what is right and wrong, unfortunately.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Those are all questions we would ask in the context of consequential ethics (the more information, the better). Often we have to make decisions based on inadequate information, which of course is not ideal, and raises the chance of horribly screwing up, which is why consequential ethics is inherently reliant on an ethical obligation to learn and explore.

As to your issue/question, I'm not sure I understand. Can you rephrase it?

The social contract is implicit, it doesn't need to be signed. Generally speaking, we inherit it. But in terms of a democratic society, we do contribute to it (or we can, if the system is working).

I am not convinced that the system is working, or that the democratic aspect of our society, is really democratic. I believe that democracy should be based on the will of people, who make their own educated decisions, of how their world should be governed. Lack of education is ample, therefore democracy is crippled. Closed minds and open pockets has lead to the problem with the meat and milk industry in the first place. People will firstly react based on their egocentric instinct, at least from what I have seen, so this social contract, is far from being valid. It should be, but it is not.

As far as my question goes, I think you give a good explanation. We make decisions based on inadequate information. Deontology would have all the boys trying to make it, unless the fat boy would be willing to sacrifice itself, I think. Also until we have all the information, deontology would set firm rules of what is the right thing to do. Of course, if we dont question those rules, we are doomed. I am not a proponent of deontolgy, without questioning, but only in a society where people are interested to search for information and find out for themselves what is good/right and what not. From what I see we are far from achieving such social identity.

Ok, you make some interesting points here. I have obviously a lot to study, with regards to deontology and consequentialism. So far I have been following my logic, to my path away from religion/theism, to my path to veganism, etc, admiteddly unaware of such philosophical categorizations. I am glad I have come to know something, that I can study further. Not that it will change something directly in me. I think that categories, although sometimes necessary, should be avoided when possible. Each of us is an individual after all. So, for now, I will thank you for the interesting things I have learned, and reserve my right to come back to this one, with further arguments or questions.